Tôi Kratistôi >>

Well over 2,300 years ago in Greece lay a field of tangled bodies littering the horizon with jutting spears and tattered pennants, intermixed with the helter-skelter flap of carrion birds. It was here that an ambitious king, Philip II of Macedon, deployed the unstoppable power of overlapping shields. This formation was the phalanx. After Philip's death, his son Alexander deployed from Greece into Asia in 334 BC, and would use this battle formation to bring the transcontinental Persian Empire to its knees.

Tea Party activists often ponder the destiny of the Conservative Movement, and when I was in DC for the 9/12 March, I had often heard the analogy of a marching army. And since I am reading a biography of Alexander, I would like to draw a comparison between ourselves and the brave Greeks who swept away the most sprawling and powerful empire of their time; Persia. I can also tell you why it matters. At any rate, I suppose I just wanted to show you something useful from Greece these days. And for liberals who suddenly find themselves recoiling at battlefield jargon, close this article and go read Newsweek before it’s embossed in sandstone with an Archaeopteryx or Larry King.

The Army, Then and Now

Let’s begin with the composition of our standing Army. The Tea Party Movement is made up of free men and women united by their desire for independence from the rule of elites. Our Greek ancestors were not that different, as free men holding land, weapons, and property in their homelands, priding themselves as stalwart citizens. Tea Partiers hail from regional affiliations to meet people of similar worldview as they march eastward. They are brothers, sons, mothers, sisters, families, veterans, groups representing businesses and industries uniting in the common cause of liberty. The ancient Greek states were also fiercely independent, dubiously loyal to even each other, yet combined in their shared recognition of common enemies. Thebes, Macedon, Thessaly, Corinth, Athens, and other peoples composed the fighting force, drawn from every proud corner of the Alexander’s Empire. It could be said of both armies that there was a common bond and unbreakable camaraderie that cemented such peoples, both then and today. Aside from their varied compositions, they also share another common thread as polling suggests; they are mostly working families and middle class, the same societal fabric of Alexander’s military machine. This brings us to our foes.

The Persians Empire was not as democratic, and certainly not a meritocracy as Greece prided itself during its finest hours. Persian society was stratified between rulers and subjects, without a participant citizen class of Greek ideal. This dependent and subservient stratum was ruled by an obscenely wealthy caste of monarchs, sending millions into battle, unwillingly advancing under the lash to defend the ambitions of the Persian Empire, instead of fighting for the region therein from whence they were summoned. This lopsided composition defines the Leftist machine of today, led by bloated insiders, lobbyists, and Leftist billionaires who fancy themselves visionaries, marching proudly on the backs of dependency slaves and the idiotic “true believers.” Like the Persians, much of their ground force is of foreign mercenaries who do not speak the common language. The Left comprises the up and down extremes of the class spectrum, and is a mercenary army.

Interlocked Shields

We are marching like our Greek fathers of yore against an eastern capital ruled by a King who fancies himself a god; a King surrounded by dependents who view our campaign as an assault on them.  Before we depart, we need to pick up our game in unity and loyalty to one another.

Ronald Reagan once issued the 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Now firstly, people must qualify as Republicans to earn this privilege, so Dede Scozzafava and Arlen Specter shouldn’t make it pass basic training. And while Reagan arguably went on to break this commandment when impugning Gerald Ford, he didn't splinter the phalanx by asking for an exotic new 3rd party to explain to the American electorate. Instead, he called for the revitalization of the Republican Party and burned a legacy for decades as a voice of common sense to the American people, becoming the veritable Demosthenes of American Exceptionalism. Similarly, when young Alexander was foisted into power, he began a thorough purging to consolidate his empire before he tackled Persia; he cleaned house during his primary before he marched united for the general campaign (not the other way around). There is an appropriate time for everything.

Like some, I was appalled with the willingness of many Republicans to buy into the Leftist campaign to destroy Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin as dim-witted and unqualified, all the while ignoring the top of the oppostion’s ticket. Since progressives view themselves as Rhode’s Scholar geniuses and anyone who opposes them as unwashed locals, they have depicted all Republicans as dim bulbs since Quayle, Bush, Reagan, Jindal and Palin rode into our lexicon. And the fact that so many Republicans bought into it in 2008 (believing a recycled media tactic) still perplexes me to this day, especially since we don’t fully recognize it by now. I was crushed when many conservatives publicly wheeled on Bobby Jindal (another rising star) when he rebutted Obama’s State of the Union Address. Likewise, McCain’s crew ate their own after their loss, scapegoating Palin whom they kept on a short leash. To name names, the hindsight warrior Steve Schmidt should never be hired by the GOP again. In statesman-like contrast, Mitt Romney gracefully took a volley of scorn for standing with his sister-in-arms:

Good Job, Mitt. You have lots to repent for – and deservedly so – but that was gallant. I do believe in redemption.

Rewinding again, we can look at Greek combat for inspiration in loyalty. Whenever a man fell, both sides would violently grapple to claim the body; one side to honor the soldier, the other side to strip his body and shame him. This reminds me of a recent "conservative" caller to Sean Hannity’s radio show, complaining that all old blood had to be purged from the GOP, and that namely that Sean should not have an “unfaithful cheater” like Dick Morris as a guest. Hannity replied collectedly (but agitated all the same) that Dick Morris had a grace to refocus himself that Clinton lacked, that he took responsibility for his failure, mended his marriage, and even gave his life to God, to boot. Salvaging his marriage, Morris later worked feverishly to foster a telephonic blitzkrieg to stop ObamaCare…all to have a dagger slipped into his back while holding the front line.

Let's paint a scenario: If an undecided voter witnesses a Republican kick a fellow Republican like...let's say...Dick Morris, the kicker himself can reason it as a push for ideological purity, or that Morris has simply been in DC for too long, or some other well-reasoned motivation. But what does the undecided see? He sees a voter kicking a Republican. Will the undecided assume that you’re doing it for purity’s sake? For anti-incumbency sentiment against both parties? Or will he just take the simple route, concluding that you are kicking a Republican because he is Republican and you dislike the party’s platform? The last answer is the most obvious to the political independent, who watches ESPN and goes to bed. When we criticize candidates, we must keep it constructive, build a platform and a message, settle it before the general campaign, and do so without creating a train wreck. There is what you feel, then what others see. Consider both.

I can compare today’s conservative movement to one of history’s greatest long-shot military campaigns. I can’t compare Ross Perot to anything, as losers don’t write history. Winners do. And that’s why armies ultimately march: victory.

Much like Alexander's war with Persia, we face a better-funded and daunting adversary that bets on the fear, dependence, and obedience in people; the statist seems to war against the human nature to live, while the conservative struggles against the human drive to self-immolate. This means that we must take care of one another, remain more alert, keep stoic to ridicule, take our licks happily, and march with the weapons we have, not always the ones we want. We must emphasize the quality of our soldier over sheer throngs of paid rent-a-mobs who uncannily resemble the Persian mercenary army of yore (ACORN). We must remain pure to our values, accept some variance (as no perfect soldier exists), and march from local interests to a common battlefield (as the greatest broadsides to DC came from Arizona, Massachusetts, New Jersey). When one of our own is stricken, we must fly to their defense and battle like ferocious lions. We must hold the phalanx.

In short, between “us and them,” we are the better men and women. Therefore we must act like it and be excellent. We can give no inch, no excuse, and we should not give up our dead.

War Fatigue

Any movement, no matter how well-managed, can only preserve zeal for so long. “The sinews of war are infinite money” (Cicero). The Macedonian Army stabbed further into Asia after defeating Persian King Darius at Gaugamela, and conflicts arose in the Greek ranks as to their common goals. All the while, Alexander integrated Asian mercenaries into the campaign, he took eastern wives, and he entered the temples of foreign gods. You see, Alexander was a wild-eyed dreamer, who spent the latter third of his life away from his homeland entirely. He dreamt of a united world empire fusing Hellenism and Orientalism, which was a strange destiny that alienated him from the Greek countrymen of his fighting corpse and sapped his momentum.  This unrest culminated in outright mutiny near the Ganges River in India, when the troops who once loved him refused to press onward and chase his dreamy horizons.

The lesson? Any leader kept far away from his sacred lands, people, and away from the tombs of his fathers for any protracted stretch can run the danger of losing his sense of self, and he can often assimilate many of the lesser elements against which he ardently fought when the romance of struggle was still alive. Just as well, Washington DC has a tendency to change good men into scoundrels, and the same erosion of a common ethos is what sabotaged the Gingrich sweep of 1994 to the Party’s long fall from glory. This is a perilous cartography for failure that we had best avoid the next time around.

Our Leader

Some military campaigns are reported to happen as a series of events involving hundreds of different personalities, names, egos, etc. You see the gallant heroes of the Ameican Revolution and how each one is given a unique place in the classroom pantheon. On the other hand, this chapter is taught with only one man at its center…by in large for the fact that he was just that. You see, Alexander was exceptional, remarkable, and uncommon. He was a larger-than-life character of stubborn and steely resolve, leaving indelible furrows in the shape of our modern world. This leader held a remarkable grasp of oratory power, tactical genius, limitless energy, and an organic connection to the souls under his command. While the nebulous face of this titan has yet to take shape for the GOP, he – or she – should reflect a preponderance of these qualities. I am sure that in time this person will emerge if our army deserves it.

Observers might criticize what I left out, suggesting that Alexander “governed the Greeks but ruled the Persians,” and others would cite a "god complex" that he developed in Egypt where he was hailed as a deity. I know that Reagan himself wouldn't appreciate his own enshrinement; he would want us to look forward to the dauntless horizons of tomorrow, like the “smart Alec” boy-king before he was adulterated by the nations that he conquered. Either way, both men only looked back for wisdom. They always looked ahead to dream.

Final Thought

From the makeup of our army, to our phalanx, our momentum and ethos, and what we seek in leadership, these ancient victories can give us a glimpse into the future. And if Battlestar Galactica taught us anything, it’s that everything that has happened will happen again, and that everything happening has already happened.

Now for those of you who are still bewildered at my article’s exotic title, I left you in suspense for a reason. You see, history regards Alexander’s greatest failure in not providing a clear heir before he died at 32 years old, leading to fragmentation and dissent thereafter. But is this always a weakness? To not crown a leader? We don’t live in a monarchy, and Greeks themselves valued representation. I would suspect that the Gipper himself would leave that "succession question" open-ended.

But I digress. Back to the title.

As Alexander lay battle-scarred and dying in his palace, his advisors and generals begged him to nominate an heir to become King of the Known World. And in true laconic form, he muttered an invitation that spanned not only his epoch, but an echoing challenge from across the marble arches of time, a message addressed to all of us in a way which… whether we like it or not, spells duty.

When pressed to name an heir, he curtly whispered "Tôi Kratistôi," or “To the strongest.”

Dawn.  4,000 miles from Greece in the Punjab Province of ancient India. An older Alexander, now a battle-hardened man, surveys the other side of the Hydaspes River and the amassing troops and elephants of King Rai Por. Under his own command are 40,000 soldiers. The shield columns are brick-solid, which is always important.

"ON YOUR FEET YOU DOGS!!! FORM PHALANX AND PREPARE FOR ADVANCE!!!”  >>